WASHINGTON, United States – Seven bipartisan US senators have urged President Donald Trump to reverse his plan to allow Russian diesel imports. They argue that the move conflicts with federal laws restricting Russian energy imports and could provide revenue to Moscow as its war against Ukraine continues.
In a statement published October 11, the senators said the administration had failed to consult Congress or provide an explanation they believe the law requires. They called on Trump to reverse course immediately.
The group includes three Democrats and four Republicans. Their challenge raises questions about the limits of the president’s authority, the scope of US sanctions and Congress’s role in setting policy toward Russia.
However, the senators’ legal objections do not amount to a court ruling. No judicial decision establishing that the diesel plan is unlawful was identified in the sources reviewed for this report.
Seven Senators Sign the Statement
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s official statement names all seven signatories:
- Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire and the committee’s ranking member.
- Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.
- Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut.
- Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska.
- Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon.
- Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina.
- John Curtis, Republican of Utah.
The committee’s release confirms seven signatories, although an Associated Press report listed only six and omitted Wyden.
The senators said Congress banned Russian energy imports in 2022 to prevent US payments from helping finance Russia’s war against Ukraine. They argue that allowing Russian diesel into the United States runs directly counter to that restriction.
They also said the administration had not consulted Congress or submitted the explanation they believe the law requires.
The statement is a formal public demand for a policy reversal. It is not legislation, a congressional vote to block the imports or a judicial order.
What the 2022 Import Ban Requires
Congress enacted the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act in April 2022. Public Law 117-109 prohibits imports into the United States of Russian products classified under Chapter 27 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. That category covers petroleum products, including diesel.
The law also sets out a process for ending the import ban. Under Section 3, the president may terminate the prohibition after submitting a written certification to Congress that Russia meets specified conditions.
Before submitting that certification, the president must consult the relevant House and Senate committees and provide them with a report explaining the basis for the decision. The law requires that consultation and report at least 45 days before the certification.
Even then, the termination would take effect 90 days after the certification, unless Congress enacted a joint resolution of disapproval during that period.
The senators argue that the administration’s decision to allow Russian diesel imports conflicts with this legal framework. They also say the administration has not met the consultation and reporting requirements.
However, the exact legal relationship between the statutory import ban and the Treasury Department’s new authorization remains disputed. The administration has not publicly announced a formal termination of the import ban under the process described in the 2022 law.
What Treasury’s General License 135 Allows
The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License 135 on October 9, two days before the senators’ statement.
The license authorizes certain transactions involving the sale, delivery, unloading and importation of diesel fuel originating in Russia. It covers transactions that would otherwise be prohibited under two specified US sanctions regulations.
The authorization runs until 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 7, 2027. It does not authorize debits to accounts held by Russia’s central bank, National Wealth Fund or Finance Ministry at US financial institutions.
The license provides a temporary authorization under the sanctions regulations it identifies. It does not expressly repeal the 2022 statutory import ban or state that the president has completed the separate process for terminating that ban.
That distinction lies at the heart of the dispute. Treasury has authorized certain transactions under its sanctions rules, while the senators argue that the administration must also comply with the restrictions and procedures established by Congress.
Whether the license provides a sufficient legal basis for the proposed imports, or conflicts with the statutory ban, remains a legal question. The public documents reviewed for this report do not establish a final judicial answer.
A Second Sanctions Law Adds Pressure
The dispute also comes weeks after Congress enacted the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026. President Trump signed the law on September 18.
The law introduces several measures aimed at Russia. Section 112 directs the president to increase duties on goods imported from Russia, including petroleum products, to a rate of up to 500% within 30 days of enactment.
Section 113 separately directs duties of up to 100% on goods from certain countries that buy Russian-origin crude oil or natural gas or facilitate sanctions evasion, subject to the law’s conditions and exceptions.
The law also permits certain waivers. Under Section 115, the president must submit a written certification that a waiver serves the national interest, along with a report explaining the basis for that certification, before issuing a waiver under the section.
These provisions create a further legal and policy issue for the administration. General License 135 authorizes transactions under specified sanctions regulations, but it does not itself state that it waives the duties required by the 2026 law.
The senators’ statement frames the diesel plan as inconsistent with Congress’s broader effort to restrict Russian energy revenue. The specific application of the new duties and any available exceptions or waivers must be assessed under the text of the law.
Republicans Disagree Over the Plan
The opposition includes Republicans who have questioned whether the administration’s decision complies with existing law.
Tillis has publicly questioned the plan’s legality and warned about the risks of easing pressure on Russia while its war against Ukraine continues.
Senator John Barrasso, the Republican Senate whip from Wyoming, offered a different view during an October 11 interview on CBS’s Face the Nation.
Barrasso said Trump was balancing the need to lower energy costs for American families, farmers and truckers against the goal of ending Russia’s war in Ukraine. He described the move as another source of leverage for the president in seeking a long-term settlement.
Barrasso also said the new sanctions law gave the president flexibility to act in what he considers the interests of peace and lower energy prices.
His comments provide a Republican defense of the policy. However, they do not resolve the legal dispute over the 2022 import ban or the administration’s obligations under the newer law.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also defended the administration’s approach, according to Reuters, arguing that it falls within existing legal authority and serves the public interest by seeking to lower diesel prices. A separate formal Treasury response to the senators’ October 11 statement was not identified in the public material reviewed for this report.
The Price Argument Remains Uncertain
Trump announced the Russian diesel arrangement on October 9, saying Russia would provide more than 300,000 metric tons initially, followed by additional shipments in later stages.
The administration has presented the plan as a way to ease high fuel costs. However, energy analysts have questioned whether the announced supplies would substantially lower US diesel prices.
The price effect depends on whether buyers purchase the fuel, when shipments arrive and where the diesel is delivered. The announcement and the sanctions license do not establish that the fuel has been loaded, shipped, imported or sold to US consumers.
Even if deliveries proceed, additional Russian diesel may redirect existing supplies rather than increase the amount available worldwide by the same volume. Other buyers could then seek replacement supplies elsewhere.
These uncertainties matter to the senators’ objections. They argue that the potential benefits to US consumers do not justify a move they believe conflicts with the law and could provide revenue to Russia.
However, the expected economic effect is a separate question from the legal authority to permit the imports. Neither the likely price impact nor the policy’s political appeal determines whether it complies with federal law.
What Happens Next
As of October 12, no official reversal of General License 135 or confirmed suspension of the Russian diesel plan had been identified in the public sources reviewed for this report.
The senators’ statement does not itself block the imports. A change could follow if the administration reverses course, Congress takes further legislative action or a court considers a legal challenge.
The statutory deadlines also matter. The 2022 law sets out a consultation, reporting and waiting-period process for terminating the import prohibition. Meanwhile, the 2026 law directs the administration to increase duties on Russian goods within 30 days of enactment, subject to its provisions and any applicable exceptions or waivers.
The administration’s next steps will help clarify how it intends to reconcile the new diesel authorization with those laws. Until then, the dispute remains unresolved.
The central question is not simply whether Russian diesel could lower fuel costs. It is whether the administration can permit the imports under the authority it has invoked while meeting the requirements Congress has enacted.
Reporting Credit: US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control; US Government Publishing Office; White House.
